Laura Denvir Stith, chief justice of the
Supreme Court of Missouri, delivered the following State of the Judiciary
address Wednesday morning, Jan. 28, 2009, during
a joint session of the General Assembly
in Jefferson City, Mo.

Introduction

President
Kinder, President Pro Tem Shields, Speaker Richard, my fellow Supreme Court
judges, Treasurer Zweifel, Auditor Montee, Attorney General Koster, other elected
officials and my fellow citizens: I am truly honored to appear before you again
to discuss the state of Missouri’s judiciary.

The people
of Missouri envisioned that the leaders of all
three branches of our government would swear the same oaths to uphold Missouri’s constitution and then work
together as constitutional partners in serving the citizens of Missouri. Our constitution establishes
distinct but interrelated roles for the judicial, legislative and executive
branches. In this, my last year as chief justice, I have directed many of my
efforts toward identifying more clearly the constitutional mission of the
judicial branch and determining how best that mission can be accomplished. This
task has taken on even greater urgency in light of the worsening economic
forecast.

In
evaluating the role of the judicial branch in our constitutional partnership,
the place I naturally began is the people's law: our constitution, which, in
article I, imposes certain requirements on the judiciary. Section 14 mandates
“That the courts of justice shall be open to every person ….” Section 10 ensures
that every person whose life, liberty or property is threatened receives “due
process of law.” Section 2 specifies that all persons are entitled to equal
rights and opportunity under the law. If we do not work together to secure
these rights for our citizens, then, as the constitution
itself states (article I, section 2), our government “fails in its chief
design.” These and other overarching constitutional principles have led
me to identify four strategic missions of our legal system:

(1)
Ensuring equal and affordable access to justice for all our citizens;

(4)
Enhancing the public's trust and confidence in the justice system and, indeed,
the whole government.

All of us in the judiciary strive
each day to accomplish these missions. But we cannot do it alone. We will
succeed only if we continue to collaborate with you, our constitutional
partners. Together, we must encourage
continued innovation as we face new and different challenges; we must learn to enhance
our services while being more efficient; and we always must keep in mind that
any path we choose should continue us toward the kind of open, responsive
courts the constitution shows our citizens envisioned.

Implementing a strategic vision for Missouri’s courts

Collaboration
has been the foundation of our government, since the drafting of our
constitution. The Missouri Constitution was not the work of just legislators –
it evolved – and continues to evolve – through the collaboration of officials from
all branches of government and ordinary citizens alike, with a healthy respect
for tradition combined with an openness to new ideas.

Missouri’s courts have adopted this same
approach by reaching out to others as we seek to fulfill our constitutional
duties. We know it is not enough for courts simply to do things as they always
have done. Especially in the midst of these difficult economic times, we must
focus not just on weathering the storm but on using our resources even more
efficiently, and we cannot be afraid to ask the difficult questions that drive
us toward an improved judiciary. Indeed, the challenges we face today make
planning for tomorrow more essential now than ever before.

Some of you
will remember that my colleague Mike Wolff helped initiate this process a few
years ago by making Missouri the first judiciary in the nation
to invite the American Bar Association to conduct a critical review of how well
Missourians believe their courts are serving them. The report reassured us that
the courts are doing their job very well. We were rated favorably on our
professionalism, the quality and tenure of our judges, and our basic unified
structure. Our ongoing plan for the use of information technology also was well
received. The report also identified a few areas in which further progress must
be made – such as adequately funding public defenders and streamlining case procedures.

To better
address these and other challenges, the courts must recognize that we cannot simply
force all modern problems to fit old judicial molds – we must look at the needs
of our citizens and businesses today and ensure that the courts evolve to meet
them. As a key part of that effort, I have invited those with the most contact
with our legal system – lawyers, judges, court staff and others – to join me in
using an open-ended “brainstorming” tool to help us identify ways in which we
can make Missouri’s courts even better. Their responses have been very helpful
and insightful.

But I do
not want to stop there. I want your input as well, for I am confident you will
have additional insights, drawn from your own experience or that of your
constituents, about how our courts can better serve Missouri today and in years to come. In the
next few days, the Court will e-mail your office this short brainstorming tool.
I know you all are busy and to say “you’ve got mail” is an understatement, but
I ask that you take a moment to look at this tool and please share any ideas you
have for us. With your ideas and those already suggested, I will prepare a more
formal strategic initiative that will outline some of the programs that, in both
the short and long term, will move us toward fulfilling our four missions. We
will share this strategic document with you once it is completed in the coming
weeks.

In the
meantime, we will deliver to you this afternoon a pocket-sized brochure with
basic facts about the judiciary as well as an electronic document outlining our
key legislative issues for 2009. I will spend the remainder of my remarks this
morning touching on key aspects of these issues. Together, we can build on the
solid foundation we already have and forge an even better justice system for
the future. Our citizens deserve nothing less.

Ensuring equal and affordable access
to justice

The first
mission of the judiciary is to ensure equal and affordable access to justice
for all Missourians – no matter their color or creed or ability to pay. We can
do no less if we are to fulfill the promise of Missouri’s constitution (article I, section
2) that all our citizens “are entitled to equal rights and opportunity under
the law.” This is one of our most
critical challenges.

Much good
work already is being done to advance this mission. In Kansas City, for example, the municipal court
and city prosecutors run a program through which lawyers provide free legal
assistance to homeless veterans who are arrested on municipal violations.
Usually the veterans are asked to perform community service in lieu of fines.
Lawyers in other Missouri cities also participate each year
in a law day when they provide free legal advice to those who need help; lawyers
in the Springfield area do this on a monthly basis.

Programs
like these have sparked people to suggest that we implement statewide “veterans
courts” or dockets overseen by judges who understand the unique problems and needs
presented by some former members of the military. Other suggestions involve
ways we can streamline procedural requirements in complex civil cases such as
major labor and business disputes. Along with business leaders throughout our
state, we recognize that the prompt resolution of these cases is essential for Missouri’s economic engine to work, let
alone to grow. Likewise, we must identify those litigants whose needs we can
serve more efficiently in simple civil cases such as foreclosures and even
traffic infractions, so that equal access is provided to all litigants, no
matter the worth of their case.

I also am
proud to tell you that we are seeking to make justice more affordable for all
our citizens by expanding the use of teleconferencing and videoconferencing. We
already use videoconferencing in some of our juvenile courts to enable parents
whose children have been required to be placed far away to see their children
and communicate with them on a regular basis. In addition, some courts – such
as those in the St. Joseph area – use videoconferencing for
criminal arraignments and juvenile dockets as well. The Court believes that expanding
this technology could save the state money on staffing and transfer of judges
to hear cases in areas where dockets are crowded. At the same time, it would
make available to additional litigants quick, direct access to justice while
eliminating much of their travel costs.

I have
asked a group of knowledgeable judges and clerks to make recommendations – by
the end of the current fiscal year – for the best ways to use this technology.
Their leader will be a former trial judge with nearly two decades of experience
representing all sorts of clients throughout northwest Missouri in all sorts of cases.

I am
speaking of my newest colleague, Judge Zel Fischer, whose intelligence, experience
and enthusiasm already have made Zel – as he much prefers to be called – an
excellent addition to the Supreme Court. He is an extremely devoted family man,
and his affable and easy-going manner is obvious to anyone who spends time with
him. I am certain that you will come to like him; in fact, I don’t know anyone
who has met him who doesn’t like him. Judge Fischer – Zel – will you please
stand?

Public Defender Crisis as an Aspect
of Access to Justice

One critical
challenge, however, continues to be our ability to deliver equal and affordable
access to justice in criminal matters. One measure of a society’s justice
system is how well it handles the worst of citizens who come before it. Well, I
hope there are other measures too, because of all states with statewide public
defender systems, Missouri ranks dead last in per capita funding of public
defenders. This affects not just the defendant whose trial is delayed. It sometimes
means that justice is delayed or denied for the victims of crime, who watch in
frustration as evidence or witnesses disappear and stress increases.

There is a serious public safety
aspect of the public defender crisis as well. The federal constitution
guarantees defendants both speedy trials and competent legal counsel. The
inadequate number of public defenders, however, puts in question the state’s
ability to meet either of these requirements. In short, if not corrected,
defendants potentially could be set free without going to trial. The United
States Supreme Court has said that it is presumptively prejudicial for a
criminal defendant in state courts to have to wait more than eight months for
trial where the delay was caused by the prosecutor. But, just two weeks ago the
United States Supreme Court heard an appeal suggesting that it is also the
state’s fault if gross underfunding causes public defenders to ask for
continuances. Victims’ advocates have expressed very understandable concern
this could result in vast numbers of criminals being set free because their
public defenders were unable to take them to trial soon enough. Missouri does not want to find
itself in the position of other states, such as Indiana, Montana and Washington, that were faced with
the possibility of releasing prisoners or lawsuits from the ACLU if they did
not fix their public defender crises. It also does not want to be like Louisiana, where the legislature
had to seek a bailout from Congress for the public defender program to avoid
releasing hundreds of prisoners.

Much work
already is being done in Missouri to try to stave off problems like
these. In the city of St. Louis, last year – for the first time in
recent memory – more criminal cases were disposed of than were filed. How did
they do it? Judges, private attorneys, and attorneys from the public defender’s
and circuit attorney’s offices collaborated; our state courts administrator’s
office offered technical assistance in expediting case handling; and a method allowing
for quicker disposition of criminal cases was established.

And in Springfield, the bar spearheaded a cooperative
effort within the local legal community to recruit and train private attorneys to
handle probation revocation cases where there are no other charges pending.
Just six months after the program was born, more than 40 lawyers have volunteered,
most of whom have received training and have begun taking cases. The public
defender’s office says this is making a real difference in caseloads there. We
are hoping to draw on Springfield’s expertise and replicate its
cooperative program elsewhere in Missouri this year. Crista Hogan and Brian
Hamburg, who have been intimately involved in that effort, braved the ice and
snow to be here today. I ask you both to stand so we all can recognize you for your
cooperation, innovation and success.

Even the
most drastic of volunteer efforts, however, is not nearly enough. That is why
working with you to find creative solutions to remedy the worsening situation
in Missouri’s public defender system is one of our
key priorities this legislative session. We believe a substantial additional
state commitment of resources is necessary, but that simply is not possible
without the support of those of you in this room. I am confident that together,
we can find ways to ease these burdens, comply with federal law, and enhance equal
– and affordable – access to justice for all.

Citizens in
civil and criminal cases require more than just equal and affordable access to
our legal system, though. They also expect – and deserve – our courts to be
fair, unbiased and impartial forums, for the Missouri Constitution (article I,
section 14) promises that a “certain remedy [be] afforded for every injury to
person, property or character, and that right and justice shall be administered
without sale, denial or delay.” Fulfilling this promise also is one of the
missions of the Missouri Judiciary.

In our
focus on providing an unbiased and impartial forum to resolve disputes, we have
found that some types of cases simply do not fit well within a traditional
court framework. These cases can be handled better by looking for innovative solutions,
such as the drug courts and other specialized “problem-solving” approaches now
offered in most of our counties. These specialized dockets make the processing
of such cases more efficient and best utilize the expertise of those who work
on them – they serve as alternatives to imprisonment for generally non-violent
offenders whom the judge believes have a real chance of turning their lives
around if they receive serious, court-supervised treatment, oversight and
mentoring.

I talked with you last year about
the success of our drug courts and of the GreeneCountyDWI court in making positive changes in
the lives of participants and their families at a fraction of the cost of
prison. These programs make our communities safer, because those who graduate
from these courts are far less likely to reoffend than are those who are sent
to prison.

A new and
effective use of the treatment court model involves reintegration dockets,
which reduce recidivism by placing offenders released from prison into
intensive programs where they are taught the skills they need to readjust to
life in their communities. The program requires random
drug tests; regular meetings with a probation officer; frequent support group
and treatment sessions; and maintaining employment. A judge monitors the
participants’ behavior and can send them to jail or back to prison if they fail
to comply. One reintegration success story is that of Larry Goodman,
who, for much of his adult life, did not think he had a drug or alcohol problem
despite frequent arrests while intoxicated. In 2007, instead of being released
directly into the community to make his own way, he entered BooneCounty’s new reintegration program under
the supervision of Judge Christine Carpenter. Now, as Mr. Goodman puts it: “I
am living a life like I have never lived before, a life without drugs and
alcohol … Everything is brand new.” Mr. Goodman and Judge Carpenter, would you
please stand and be recognized?

These innovative
approaches are not limited to the criminal field. The courts and local mental
hospitals in St. Joseph and the city of St. Louis have developed programs that allow civil
commitment hearings to be held by videoconference without the patient or the
doctor ever leaving the hospital. This allows cases to move more quickly, saves
time and money, is less stressful and more dignified for the patient, and enhances
public safety by eliminating the risk of escape during transport. Ron Dittemore
of Heartland Health was instrumental in setting up the program in St. Joseph – a decision driven by economic
necessity but that has great long-term effects well beyond the financial
benefit. Mr. Dittemore, would you please stand and be recognized for your fine
work?

I hope you
will have other suggestions for helping our courts fit the kinds of cases
brought before them, rather than trying to force unique cases into a
one-size-fits-all traditional court structure.

Efficiently administering justice

Assuring
that our citizens receive an unbiased forum to resolve their disputes dovetails
with the third mission of Missouri's judiciary: to administer our
courts efficiently and effectively. We view all our efforts to improve the
efficiency within the judicial branch as part of the constitutional guarantee to
our citizens of “due process of the law.”

Many who
have participated in our brainstorming exercise have praised our efforts to
move cases more expeditiously. Three years ago, based in part on the Commission
on Children’s Justice’s recommendations, we implemented time standards for
certain hearings in child abuse and neglect cases. I am proud to announce that,
last fall, we honored 25 judicial circuits for conducting at least 95 percent
of these hearings within the requisite time frames and another dozen circuits
for doing so in 100 percent of their hearings. You should be proud of the
judges and staff in all these circuits for this wonderful progress.

Court
technology is another area in which we have worked to make our system meet the
needs of those we serve. Case.net, which provides public case information to
anyone with an Internet connection, is only the tip of the iceberg. We recently
completed our statewide case management system, allowing Missouri’s courts to work with almost every
department in the state – as well as several government entities nationwide –
to ensure prompt access to critical judicial information. For instance,
transmitting criminal and traffic disposition information in near real time gets
licenses of dangerous drivers revoked quickly and helps residential care
facilities ensure their employees’ backgrounds make them appropriate to work
with children or the elderly. In the coming year, we are working to send
warrants and full orders of protection electronically to law enforcement,
giving them this critical information as quickly as possible. As a next step, we
are working with the Office of Administration to solicit bids from vendors for
e-filing, which would allow litigants to submit and retrieve court documents
from remote locations and after hours, reducing costs, saving time and allowing
for greater access to filings.

For us to
continue providing these critical services, however, we need continued
legislative commitment to court technology. Most importantly, we need you to
reauthorize the $7 filing fee paid by those who file cases. Although it funds
one-third of the court system’s technology needs, this fee is one of the lowest
in the nation for this purpose, and it is scheduled to sunset this year. But without
it, we literally would go back to pencil and paper in some places and could not
sustain the kind of information sharing that public safety and efficiency
require.

This also
is important to the state’s bottom line, for if we could not maintain our
statewide case management system, we would not be able to continue our efforts
to collect monies owed to the state and her citizens. For example, in the four
years since the judiciary and the legislature worked together to create the
tax-offset and debt-collection programs, Missouri courts have captured for the state
more than $8.4 million that otherwise would not have been paid. This is just a
small part of the tens of millions of dollars the judiciary collects each year
that is earmarked for general revenue or other funds the state administers. In
fiscal 2008, this amounted to $40.6 million. This money – which goes to schools
and state and local governments – can play a small, but key, part in
alleviating some of the burden these difficult financial times are placing on
all our government institutions.

We look
forward to working with you to maintain the positive economic impact on the
state that court technology has. We also look forward to your ideas for other
ways to increase the courts’ efficiency.

Increasing public trust and
understanding

I began by
emphasizing our roles as constitutional partners. This partnership is
established by the Missouri Constitution (article II, section 1), which
provides our basic compact with the people: “The powers of government shall be
divided into three distinct departments – the legislative, executive and
judicial …” and that no persons in one branch “… shall exercise any power
properly belonging to either of the others ….”

Over the
past few years, those of us in the legal community have been collaborating to
explain the checks and balances of these three co-equal yet interdependent
branches of government as a part of our fourth mission: enhancing the public’s
trust and confidence in their whole government. I firmly believe that as our
citizens increase their understanding of the role and workings of the judiciary
and the other branches of government, their already high level of confidence in
the judicial system, and their level of confidence in all parts of their
government, only will improve. This is an important tie that binds us all: a
deep-rooted desire to serve the citizens of this great state and to see justice
brought to those who need it.

As a part
of expanding the public’s understanding of the judicial role, judges and
lawyers are volunteering to teach in schools on Constitution Day and in
government classes. Just last week, I took part in a citizenship video program that
will be shown to thousands of middle- and high-school students in which I explained
the concepts underlying our constitutional democracy. We also are collaborating
with The Missouri Bar and others to enhance the public’s understanding of the
justice system by expanding the judicial performance evaluations that Judge Mike
Wolff suggested two years ago and that the Bar instituted last fall to give
voters better information about judges up for retention.

Conclusion

In conclusion, I want to reiterate how important it is that
we all continue our joint commitment to a well-run judiciary. Our justice
system is one leg of the three-legged stool that represents the system of
governance our constitution establishes. I never will forget the difficulties
inherent in your role, and I look forward to your input in the coming weeks and
months as we in the courts continue to develop strategic initiatives for an
even better and stronger justice system. And let us all – regardless of the
branch of government in which we serve – be guided by a legal principle
enshrined above the door of the red brick Supreme Court building – “The law: It
has honored us. May we honor it.” The citizens of Missouri deserve – and expect – no less.